Letters to the Editor
doloresflower
Published Letters: 1200 Editor's Choice: 10
-
An argument Against turning Obama into Al Gore 2000 or my loyalty to the 2 1/2 foot Giant
[Read the article: Clinton gets her party started]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wish that some of the people who are saying that they think Obama is a better candidate, but they are voting for Clinton anyway because he can always run again in eight years would consider this:
One of the issues that concerns me most in this election is the role of the executive--Bush expanded his presidential power in dangerous ways for our Democracy. I see Obama as a constitutional law Professor--as a person with the knowledge, yes the experience, and the conscience to roll back this executive privilege that Bush has increased to the detriment of our democracy. Does anyone see the two Clintons once they are in office sticking to the constitution and rolling back some of their own executive privilege? I cannot personally imagine it.
Even IF Clinton won and made Obama her VP (not at all a certainty--I believe she's far more likely to choose Governor Richardson...) There is no reason to think that this would translate into an opportunity for him to run for President as a viable candidate in eight years if they win.
Al Gore did not get the traction he needed from the Clintons to take gain the White House--yes this might be because he distanced himself from Bill, but it also might be because Hillary and Bill were essentially a two-person team, and Al Gore came across as having the job once belonging to Dan Quayle....the Clintons never "needed" Al Gore. And they have seemed to make it more than clear in this election cycle that they don't "need" Obama (or even, perhaps, his supporters--as their vituperative campaign against him has made clear).
An article in the Atlantic Monthly referred to Obama as a two-and-a-half foot giant in the land of two foot politicians. Yes, I don't think that he is perfect. No, I don't worship him as a cult leader or think that he will create perfect racial harmony in this country or heal all past pyschic wounds. But he is the two-and-a-half foot giant in the race against a two-foot politician, Hillary Clinton. For his Congressional record is more impressive than hers is, his background in constitutional law is deeply important to the preservation of our democracy, and his ability to speak to those he does not agree respectfully may be an important way--the only way--to get past the bitter, stalemated legislature of Washington D.C. of the past fourteen years. Eight years from now for better or worse, Obama will not run as an "outsider" and his enemies--wherever they are--will have found more time to study his vulnerabilities for crippling attacks and belittling. This will be his "experience."
I also wish to point out that in 2000, one of the reasons Al Gore lost was that many Americans bought the argument that "the two candidates are the same." A similar argument crops up in the decision between Clinton and Obama.
The fact is that a close look reveals that they are not the same, and they do lead in two different directions for our nation--they have deep differences that aren't just about Republican versus Democrat.
The white house is a political football that typically gets passed back and forth between the parties every one to three terms. This year--even many Republicans agree--that it is the Democrats' "turn." But if, after two terms of another Clinton White House (assuming, of course, that they are elected), if you think that the Republicans will still be content to vote as "Obama Republicans," instead of passionately voting their own next Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh-approved ring-wing Jeb Bush guy into the White House, I think you're deeply missing something about the American political back-and-forth.
According to the polls, Al Gore could have won the nomination this year if he had decided to run again--but he did not. Maybe his experience--eight years as Vice President in a Clinton White House, and one major, bitter, presidential campaign--only contributed to making him wary of trusting American voters or the Presidential campaign mud machine one more time.
So for practical, as well as ideological reasons, I'm sticking proudly with my two-and-a-half foot giant. This is a ground-breaking year. It involves making important decisions with lasting repercussions. Those who study the issues and believe that Obama is a better candidate and would make a better president need vote for him now. Believing the same opportunity will occur again in eight years seems to me to be a "false hope."
-
Lynn Harris
[Read the article: "Present" tension ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No offense, but why is this story being printed now after super Tuesday? I wondered why Salon didn't address this issue weeks ago when it came up in a mailer Clinton sent out in New Hampshire?
Salon extensively covered Obama's South Carolina "christian" mailer--and it extensively covered his mailer over her health plan--in the days before super Tuesday. So why did this story need to wait until February 6th?
This is the first time that the timing of a story has really made me feel that Salon is being somewhat disingenuous in its approach to the election. I'm glad the information is here, and I guess some Clinton supporters don't care anyway, but for feminists who misinformed abut Obama's track record on abortion, I think this article should have come up earlier. Like before so many people voted yesterday.
-
catnmus
[Read the article: "Present" tension ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Your response seems dishonest. If you wanted to find out about the present votes you could have googled it. There have been articles and explanations about the "present" votes ad nauseum on the web.
However, you are correct that we have not seen a discussion of the issue here on Salon--but that is because of the editors decision, and not because it has not been covered elsewhere, and certaintly not because Obama asked Salon to wait until February 6th to print this article.
Blaming Obama for the timing of this story seems, to put it broadly, highly unfair.